Routes path specs #135
Routes path specs #135
Conversation
|
|
||
| context "when params" do | ||
| it "should show inbox spec" do | ||
| expect(evaljs("Routes.inbox_path.params").map{|v| v }).to eq(["_id", "options"]) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I've implemented _ as a prefix for parameter name for the case of collision with javascript reserved word. Ex. /returns/:return - JS function generated from this route using previous implementation required the underscore otherwise JS would not complile function(return, options) {} because of reserved name return.
I think this solution is not required now at all and params should return id without underscore.
|
@bogdan fixed. |
|
@bogdan ping :) |
| @@ -192,6 +215,15 @@ Utils = | |||
| prefix | |||
|
|
|||
| # | |||
| # route function: create route path function and add spec to it | |||
| # | |||
| route: (required_params, required_parts, optional_parts, route_spec) -> | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What is the difference between required_params and required_parts? Why can't we use only one of them?
|
Fixed |
| #{route_name}: function(#{build_params(required_parts)}) { | ||
| return Utils.build_path(#{json(required_parts)}, #{json(optional_parts)}, #{json(serialize(route.path.spec, parent_spec))}, arguments); | ||
| }#{",\n" + url_link if url_link.length > 0} | ||
| #{route_name}: Utils.route(#{build_params(required_parts, true)}, #{json(required_parts)}, #{json(optional_parts)}, #{json(serialize(route.path.spec, parent_spec))}, arguments)#{",\n" + url_link if url_link.length > 0} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It will be hard to guess the required parameters based on currently generated code:
inbox_message_path: Utils.route(["inbox_id", "id"], "inbox_id", "id", ....)If we can not make it clear than lets make an extra line of comments that shows the correct function signature, like:
// function(inbox_id, id, options)
|
Done :) |
|
It will be hard to guess the required parameters based on currently generated code: inbox_message_path: Utils.route(["inbox_id", "id"], ["format"], ....)If we can not make it clear than lets make an extra line of comments that shows the correct function signature, like: // function(inbox_id, id, options) |
|
Done 😀 |
| #{route_name}: function(#{build_params(required_parts)}) { | ||
| return Utils.build_path(#{json(required_parts)}, #{json(optional_parts)}, #{json(serialize(route.path.spec, parent_spec))}, arguments); | ||
| }#{",\n" + url_link if url_link.length > 0} | ||
| // function(#{required_parts.join(', ')}) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
options should be part of signature.
|
This one looks good, but want to merge #137 first. This one is easier so it will be easier to merge conflicts here than there. |
|
@bogdan no problem. I just squashed commits, because it was too much for this pull request :) |
| Routes.users_path() // => "/users" | ||
| '' + Routes.user_path // => "/users/:id(.:format)" | ||
| Routes.user_path.toString() // => "/users/:id(.:format)" | ||
| Routes.user_path.required_params // => ['id'] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
These are advanced things. Lets extract them to its own part of readme.
Don't want tricky features to be mixed with core.
|
Done |
|
🎉 🆒 Thanks! |
Based by #123 , but here we don't have separate function
specto get spec of route. We overridetoStringfor route function, and this give for us to get function spec in this way: